1

HAVING entered, in the last Lecture, on the consideration of the general Characters of Style, I treated of the Concise and Diffuse, the Nervous and Feeble manner. I considered Style also, with relation to the different degrees of ornament employed to beautify it; in which view, the manner of different authors rises according to the following gradation: Dry, Plain, Neat, Elegant, Flowery.

I am next to treat of Style under another character, one of great importance in writing, and which requires to be accurately examined; that of Simplicity, or a Natural Style, as distinguished from Affectation. Simplicity, applied to writing, is a term very frequently used; but, like many other critical terms, often used loosely and without precision. This has been owing chiefly to the different meanings given to the word Simplicity, which, therefore, it will be necessary here to distinguish; and to shew in what sense it is a proper attribute of Style. We may remark four different acceptations in which it is taken.

The first is, Simplicity of Composition, as opposed to too great a variety of parts. Horace's precept

refers to this:

Denique sit quod vis simplex duntaxat et unum.*

This is the Simplicity of plan in a tragedy, as distinguished from double plots, and crowded incidents; the Simplicity of the Iliad, or Æneid, in opposition to the digressions of Lucan, and the scattered tales of Ariosto; the Simplicity of Grecian architecture, in opposition to the irregular variety of the Gothic. In this sense, Simplicity is the same with Unity.

The second sense is, Simplicity of Thought, as opposed to Refinement. Simple thoughts are what arise naturally; what the occasion or the subject suggest unsought; and what, when once suggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and obvious train of thought, and which it required a peculiar turn of genius to pursue; within certain bounds very beauti ful; but when carried too far, approaching to intricacy, and hurting us by the appearance of being recherché, or far-sought. Thus, we would naturally say, that Mr. Parnell is a poet of far greater Simplicity, in his turn of thought, than Mr. Cowley; Cicero's thoughts on moral subjects are natural; Seneca's too refined and laboured. In these two senses of Simplicity, when it is opposed, either to variety of parts, or to refinement of thought, it has no proper relation to Style.

"Then learn the wand'ring humour to controul,
"And keep one equal tenor through the whole."

FRANCIS

There is a third sense of Simplicity, in which it has respect to Style; and stands opposed to too much ornament, or pomp of language; as when we say, Mr. Locke is a simple, Mr. Harvey a florid writer; and it is in this sense, that the "simplex," the "tenue," or subtile genus dicendi," is understood by Cicero and Quinctilian. The Simple Style, in this sense, coincides with the Plain or the Neat Style, which I before mentioned; and, therefore, requires no farther illustration.

But there is a fourth sense of Simplicity, also respecting Style; but not respecting the degree of ornament employed, so much as the easy and natural manner in which our Language expresses our thoughts. This is quite different from the former sense of the word just now mentioned, in which Simplicity was equivalent to Plainness: whereas, in this sense, it is compatible with the highest ornament. Homer, for instance, possesses this Simplicity in the greatest perfection; and yet no writer has more Ornament and Beauty. This Simplicity, which is what we are now to consider, stands opposed, not to Ornament, but to Affectation of Ornament, or appearance of labour about our Style; and it is a distinguishing excellency in writing.

A writer of Simplicity expresses himself in such a manner, that every one thinks he could have written in the same way; Horace describes it,

ut sibi quivis

Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret
Ausus idem.*

*"From well-known tales such fictions would I raise "As all might hope to imitate with ease;

There are no marks of art in his expression; it seems the very language of nature; you see in the Style, not the writer and his labour, but the man in his own natural character. He may be rich in his expression; he may be full of figures, and of fancy; but these flow from him without effort; and he appears to write in this manner, not because he has studied it, but because it is the manner of expression most natural to him. A certain degree of negligence, also, is not inconsistent with this character of Style, and even not ungraceful in it; for too minute an attention to words is foreign to it: "Habeat ille," says Cicero, (Orat. No. 77.) "molle quiddam, et quod "indice non ingratam negligentiam hominis, de re "magis quàm de verbo laborantis."* This is the great advantage of Simplicity of Style, that, like Simplicity of manners, it shews us a man's sentiments and turn of mind laid open without disguise. More studied and artificial manners of writing, however beautiful, have always this disadvantage, that they exhibit an author in form, like a man at court, where the splendour of dress, and the ceremonial of behaviour, conceal those peculiarities which distinguish one man from another. But reading an author of Simplicity, is like conversing with a person of distinction at home, and with ease, where we find natural manners, and a marked character.

"Yet, while they strive the same success to gain,
"Should find their labours and their hopes in vain.”

FRANCIS.

"Let this Style have a certain softness and ease, which shall "characterise a negligence, not unpleasing in an author, who appears to be more solicitous about the thought than the "expression."

66

The highest degree of this Simplicity is expressed by a French term, to which we have none that fully answers in our language, naïveté. It is not easy to give a precise idea of the import of this word. It always expresses a discovery of character. I believe the best account of it is given by a French critic, M. Marmontel, who explains it thus: That sort of amiable ingenuity, or undisguised openness, which seems to give us some degree of superiority over the person who shews it; a certain infantine Simplicity, which we love in our hearts, but which displays some features of the character that we think we could have art enough to hide; and which, therefore, always leads us to smile at the person who discovers this character. La Fontaine, in his Fables, is given as the great example of such naïveté. This, however, is to be understood, as descriptive of a particular species only of Simplicity.

With respect to Simplicity, in general, we may remark, that the ancient original writers are always the most eminent for it. This happens from a plain reason, that they wrote from the dictates of natural genius, and were not formed upon the labours and writings of others, which is always in hazard of producing Affectation. Hence, among the Greek writers, we have more models of a beautiful Simplicity than among the Roman. Homer, Hesiod, Anacreon, Theocritus, Herodotus, and Xenophon, are all distinguished for it. Among the Romans also, we have some writers of this character, particularly Terence, Lucretius, Phædrus, and Julius Cæsar. The following passage of Terence's Andria, is a beautiful instance of Simplicity of manner in description :